Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

StonyandCher writes "The Australian government is pushing a bill to force all telecommunications providers to facilitate lawful data interception across fixed and mobile telephone systems, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Instant Messaging (IM) and chat room discussions. Sweeping reforms will make it easier than ever for law enforcement to intercept communications if amendments to the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act are agreed upon by a Senate standing committee. This follows from a story earlier this week where the Australian government is legislating to allow employers to snoop on employees' email and IM conversations."

Actually I think he's a bit too fast in some ways, too slow in others. He just let a $4.7B tender for fibre to the premises, which is good, but I tend to distrust any agent of change who moves too quickly.

Just vote LDP http://www.ldp.org.au/ [ldp.org.au] and stuff them both up!LDP is about the closest you'll get to a non-interfering government with minimal regulations and no bullshit. Back to the free country and even getting a Bill of Rights too!!!!

Mind you, I really appreciate having a Prime Minister (ermmm Kevin Rudd), that can tell the Chinese "WTF are you doing in Tibet?" in Mandarin!:)

To me this is simply insulting. Guess it comes down to which side of the fence you sit on and safetly in numbers.Since the gun control debate has already surfaced as the supposed reason Australians are facing the prospect of unrestricted government wire tapping, I think I'll take my criminal ancestry, sit back on my Aussie arse...cop the insult on the chin, turn the TV on to COPS or 48 Hours and watch some pro-gun Americans shoot each other.

In the immortal words of G.W.Bush to his holiness the pope.. "Awesome speech"..

There's no point in taking cheap shots at the US, their president does so much its like kicking 300 million loud-mouthed, obnoxious, self centered, obese, gun-loving, slack-jawed-yokel, banjo playing puppies while they are down... oh wait.. sorry...

Hey just coz they're getting the shaft too, doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset. At least they have a bill of rights, even though it's slowly getting corrupted. We've got no such thing to even challenge all these stupid things. We've no right to free speech, no protections against illegal searches, nothing. People who watch too much law-and-order think we have the same sort of protections, and so they don't get so upset when our new nanny-state overlords enact a bunch of new laws to protects us from ourselve

Well, if we have the presumption that we are not crims, then why did we have to give up our guns? A nation of people who were presumed innocent until proven guilty would not be required to give up their firearms. Really though, that just stems from a greater problem, which is that Australians generally have never given a moments thought as to what liberty is, despite having the concept in our national anthem. You might be surprised how often I have spoken to people about liberty and it is the first time the

Australia's first convict 1778 - last convict 1853 that's ummm... 75 years.Only a small proportion were convicts, the rest were free settlers.Then the damn yanks and chinese turned up for our very own gold-rush and stayed.

@ Title: Now, I hardly think anyone's going to start an armed revolution over THIS. Armed revolutions are for when democracy fails (some might argue this has already happened, but that's another can of beans) or the government does something that is universally dispised - otherwise, the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it. If anything, having guns makes the situation worse, because it gives the illusion that people have a "nuclear option" - when really, they don't (I would imagine that the government/army would win in a fight vs the people). As an Australian, I'm glad the guns have been taken away - we have few real reasons for them (you can get gun permits for hunting), and they otherwise do more harm than good.

But good point about fighting for your rights, it's just a terrible shame so few people are passionate AND informed enough to understand the implications of potential laws and not just the PR-wrapper ("Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children").

You're assuming the state would retain full control and command of the entire armed forces. If something truly devastating to the fabric of democracy happened that shook us to the very core, I'm sure the military would not be spared in being divided. So you combine that with a populous of well armed resistance fighters acting as irregular forces along with what ever military and paramilitary groups that oppose the government, and you could have a successful resistance. History is full of examples of small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare. Look what happened to the US in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan or now the US in Afghanistan/Iraq. And just on a personal level, I'd rather die in a shoot out than in front of a firing squad if those are the choices.

What makes you think that the American government won't retain control of the armed forces in case of an "emergency"? What makes you think that a significant portion of potential paramilitary groups won't support the government in an "emergency"? Since when did the 'rightist faction' of Americans start admitting that America does make mistakes? I didn't see any large scale protests (involving people from across the political spectrum) against the 'Patriot' act or the Bush's totalitarian policies such as the use of unlawful wiretrapping/torture/war mongering?

All your examples are largely irrelevant, they all involve a nation being invaded/occupied by an external power. That's no where near the same thing as a successful resistance against your own government. And lets not forget that South Vietnamese received enormous support from their brothers up north/the USSR.

I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power. African regimes with constant rebellions and other chaos don't count. Now you might say that this kind of stuff always happens in countries were personal firearms are banned, but that's just an excuse. We both know that if your government allows you to bear arms, chances are your democratic institutions are sufficiently developed for a rebellion not to occur in the first place.

The idea of firearms being a last resort for the protection of democracy is a myth. Chances are by the time you get to the point where you have to use the last resort, you won't have your firearms. Traditions/norms/values don't change overnight, you can't go from a relatively well functioning democracy to a totalitarian state in one night, not without external influences that render your last resort argument meaningless (fighting an external enemy is a whole different story).

Now don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the use of personal firearms. I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff, but in principle I am fine with people having licensed pistols for self protection and licensed rifles for hunting. I would never by a gun myself, but if you are into this kind of stuff it's your choice. What I do oppose is the promotion of the myth that democracy can be protected with firearms. It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.

I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power.

the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.

Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.

This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the use of personal firearms. I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff, but in principle I am fine with people having licensed pistols for self protection and licensed rifles for hunting.

Welcome to the Australian gun laws.

Contrary to popular US opinion we don't have a total ban on firearms but we do have restrictions, restrictions on automatic rifles and caliber sizes (yes you can get.50 automatic pistols such as the Desert eagle). You need to have a

What makes you think that the American government won't retain control of the armed forces in case of an "emergency"? What makes you think that a significant portion of potential paramilitary groups won't support the government in an "emergency"?

Well remember now that we're a nation of 50 states. There's plenty of issues that split the states. If there were one that was so heinous and so large that it resulted in actual armed rebellion, it's not hard to imagine that a revolutionary group could attain the support at the highest levels of a single state, and then gain sympathies from states with a similar political demographic. It happened once before in American "Civil War" (somewhat jokingly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" by so

That is exactly the point. You can have a democracy with almost no liberty. That's what's happening in Australia, and has been happening here for many years. Everything you do requires permission, a form to fill out, a registration or some other official or semi-official ok. Everything is controlled, and if it isn't, then there are 'expectations' that you tow the line.

VOTE LDP http://www.ldp.org/ [ldp.org] Shake those Liberal/Labour/Greens up! Let them know that they are not the only choice out there!

In fact, history is beginning to show that democracy is just as likely to result in totalitarianism as any other political process.

Quite a claim. I eagerly await your support of this statement.

After all, the promise of democracy has given us the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire in human history. The one that, in an instant, murdered over 200,000 human beings with the only use of nuclear weapons this world has ever seen. The one that's been involved in some war, somewhere around the world, for every single year of the past 100 years. The one whose business is worth trillions of dollars per year. The one whose empire is now falling under it's own weight.

FAIL

That's not totalitarian behavior. That may be militaristic and overly-aggressive, but you don't say anything about how that government treats its own citizens.

Real democracy could BY DEFINITION not occur in a totalitarian state because the people would be exercising control over the government, rather than the other way around.

History is full of examples of small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare. Look what happened to the US in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan or now the US in Afghanistan/Iraq.

So...when were you planning on giving us an example of a "small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare"?

Not to be pedantic, but none of your examples were military defeats. They were all political decisions. And while Vietnam a

The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is an apt comparison because the forces that we are trying to defeat there have persisted despite the best effort of the greatest military power on Earth. They are using the same kinds of tactics and equipment that can be found or improvised for in the US, and their numbers are actually much fewer than would be found in a type of citizen revolt in the United States following a catastrophic loss of confidence in, or outright betrayal by the government. The people

Move to Adelaide, I made that mistake mid last year. Just because the weapons have been taken away doesn't mean they're not there ("Criminalise the gun and only the criminals will have guns or whatever it is") and the amount of fire power in this city is phenomenal (albeit concealed - so entirely unlike America). Taking them away didn't really solve the problem, it just prevented every dick and his dog from getting one (ok, I will concede this is a good thing)

Didn't they really only take away semi-automatics? You know, the one's that can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time? Admittedly, I was only about 8 at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, so my understanding of what took place following is a little hazy, but from what I remember, they put a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and it was made mandatory that you have a firearms license and register each firearm you own.

So, we still have guns, but in order to get them, you must be at least 18 years of age, licensed, and the weapons must be registered and kept in secure storage.

So how is a gun going to protect you when the goverment can bomb you from miles away or 30,000 feet?

Ah, yes, all those WW2 foot-soldiers were totally redundant, we should have just fought with bombers. And why the hell are there men on the ground in Iraq? Should have just bombed them into the stone-age, right?

Seriously, I can see that you obviously have no military experience, but that comment is pretty ignorant even for a run-of-the-mill civilian. Give your head a shake. The airforce may be able to destroy shit in a spectacular fashion, but only men with guns can actually hold ground. You can't occupy a piece of land from 30,000 feet, no matter how many bombs you have.

Speaking as an Australian, it didn't make that much difference when most guns were banned following the Port Arthur shootings [wikipedia.org]. Semi-automatics & shotguns were generally banned, and it was mainly people in rural areas (farmers etc) who had these for pest control. Gun violence in Australia makes the news in a big way because it's so uncommon - more often than not it's between underworld figures/biker gangs etc than against civilians.

Gun laws are now being tightened in Australia (thankfully), with farmers being required to justify ownership of handguns. And it's about time.

The civilian ownership of guns in the USA is a false sense of power and security. Should anything happen, in response to which the use of guns would be appropriate, your army of (1) Go-it-alone Rambos; (2) idiots who don'

Actually it matters not. Its up to the army weather it decides that such an order is legal and weather or not to follow it. Even with all the guns that the US citizenry have it doesn't mean shit when faced with a trained and better equipped army unless a large part of that army has decided to fight on the other side. When talking about rebellion and revolution in a modern nation if armed, the army decides the winner.

In Australia it is more likely that the entire nation will just stop working if the gover

Seriously, when they come to strip you of your rights, do you think they're actually going to ring the doorbell and say "Hi I'm from the government, I'm here for your rights", and then act really surprised when you march them off your property at gunpoint?

Of course! Don't you know your history? The government tried to intern a lot of Japanese-Americans in WW2, but it didn't work because all of those law-abiding gun owners stopped them!

"And don't forget the Patriot Act! I remember well the NRA marching against that particular piece of legislation!"

And don't forget about what NRA members and supporters did following Clinton's 1994 gun ban! Of the people who voted for that particular travesty AND sought reelection, 33 were defeated in 1994, and another 6 went down in 1996. The NRA has enough of a battle trying to protect the Right to keep and bear arms without being the sole defender of The Constitution.

Insightful indeed, the law as it stands applies to all business right? So government contractors would have their emails subject to this as well. Would government employees be subject too? Since third party contractors can gain access to the information, what would prevent them from publishing all the correspondence between the gov and its contractors? Wouldn't it be lawful for a private company (or a NFP like the EFF or someone) to get "permission" to access all such emails and publish them?

Only a 27 year old graduate of MIT with an interest in theoretical and practical teloportation could save Australians now!

Please apply somewhere in Arizona, goatee, handiness with a crowbar encouraged. Mutes are welcome to apply. Benefits may include hot woman being inexplicably attracted to you, becoming a cult figure for human and other species. Workplace hazard pay not included.

No, Oceania includes the UK, but none of Europe, Europe all belongs to Eurasia, along with Turkey and most of the old Soviet Union (that's why the UK is "Airstrip One"). Oceania is the UK, all the Americas, Australia, and Africa south of the bulge. Eastasia is China, Japan and northern India, for the most part. The rest is disputed territory.

Have they actually had any circumstances justifying such Draconian legislation?

Or is this just a big power grab?

If any country should be aware of the dangers of somewhat-haphazardly designating a large number of people as criminal/undesirable/incorrigible, it should be Australia. A whole bunch of supposedly worthless uncivilizable "criminals" shipped to Australia as "lost causes" turned the whole thing around and built themselves a nice place to live, and now they are fucking it back up themselves. Trying to turn most of themselves back into so-called "criminals".

America has significant influence over Australia, that's for sure. In this case, however, it's more of a response to conservative values within Australia. There's been a big growth in public awareness of the darker sides of the internet and communications in general. There was a big program whereby people could gain access to a variety of free client-side net filters, for example. Generally, Australia has grown more conservative (possibly indirectly from US influence), and this policy is the result.

Have they actually had any circumstances justifying such Draconian legislation?

The headline is incredibly misleading.

The law, like the US CALEA, just says that law enforcement needs to be able to tap into the system upon showing a lawful warrant. It's a technical standardization measure, not a warrantless wiretap measure.

It makes it easier to abuse the system, but nothing about this law allows warrantless wiretaps. It makes it possible for law enforcement to have a standardized set of hardware used to access lawful (with warrant) wiretaps.

Which says the same thing, and amounts to "no system is perfect, there's always the possibility for abuse". If you followed through on that we'd have no power strucures at all, only anarchy.

Chances it's going to improve the quality of life for the average Australian? 0%

Quite. It's not like wiretaps are doing anyone any good and they should be banned outright. Wait, are they part of making law enforcement work and making a civilized society under the rule of law? Nope, no benefit there.

Seems like voting NO is a no-brainer here.

Maybe it is, but I didn't see it. I saw two knee-jerk reactions and a general conclusion you can us

And fuck off they don't do this already. An Australian guy posted on 4chan [wikipedia.org] saying he was going to shoot up a mall in America (obviously bullshit). Someone, we managed to figure out who this guy was. How? Obviously 4chan is Anonymous. I seriously doubt they handed over his IP, because I seriously doubt they had it (highest turnover I've ever seen, thread would've died before the authorities did shit). Which leaves what? Data logging. Maybe not here, almost definitely there, but to me it's fucking scary that they tracked this guy down and tried to fine him a shitload ($20, 000 I recall), just because he was talking shit on some website.

All your percentages are out. These powers may not last long enough for them to be abused in any significant way. Also, keeping crime low does improve quality of life, with less chance of the average Australian being a victim, plus making for slightly more stable and efficient economies, which improves quality of life slowly but surely, etc, etc.

Chances this will make absofuckingloutely NO difference to the status quo? - Near certainty.

There are no 'extra' powers other than making it compulsory for telecoms to have wiretapping capabilities for various types of digital and analog comms. AFAIK they have all had that capability for quite some time. We don't have a bill of rights AND we don't have warrantless searches, go figure.

I think that here, Australians generally believe freedom to be social normality. Anything considered outside normality is not valued under our principles of freedom. That is why we basically are swayed into more police powers because we all think "I'm normal, I've got nothing to hide"

There never really was a feeling of defense of those outside the norm who do no harm to others as a principle of freedom in Australia.

Well said. Perceptive even! I tried to say that in a previous post but didn't have the words.I wonder how that 'social pressure' began? In the 60's, the social temperament was very lax and inviting. Bonfires on the beach, cracker night, pig shooting in Pilliga, shouts of beer, sheilas:)And now? We seem to be voluntarily turning into 'upright citizens' whatever that means!Fortunately I remember those times, but the current XYZ gen have no idea.If you start thinking of how restricted Australian life has bec

Very shortly after the colony was first set up, it became obvious that very few people, especially those of any sort of professsional standing in GB, were willing to risk either the new continent, or even the journey itself.

Therefore, many people (such as Francis Greenway, architect) were selected for transportation on relatively minor charges. In short, transportation became way to get very specific, particular, skills to the new colony.

If all that passes in the worst possible way, it is about what we have in the US now. All data from a user, given a subpoena, shall be sent to the government. It has been ruled in the US that the computer and everything running on it and through it belongs to the owner. If you get a work computer for work, they own all emails you send from it, files you store on it, and can track everything you do through the corporate Internet connection. That's all perfectly legal now in the US. So, hearing some othe

A company handing over data about what happens on their network is VASTLY different from the government being able to spy on what a user does in their personal time at home.

You should always assume you have no privacy in a corporate environment, because a company is paying for YOUR time. Therefore if you do anything other than work on that connection/resources, you are just being stupid.

That is like complaining that you work at 7:11 and there's a camera monitoring you, so if the government puts cameras in your home, it's the exact same thing.

That is like complaining that you work at 7:11 and there's a camera monitoring you, so if the government puts cameras in your home, it's the exact same thing.

Huh? This is about two things, one, allowing the government to more easily tap after it has done the paperwork to file a warrant. This already exists in the USA, CALEA. The government isn't doing anything they aren't otherwise allowed to. It's just requiring that the companies that carry the traffic make it easier for the government to gain acces

For that matter, how would they snoop on Google chat conversations, which happen over the encrypted Jabber network. Will there need to be AU-only versions of popular applications to support non-cryption? Or will these simply be out of use in Austrailia?

Don't worry aussies! some freindly type folks have been so kind as to share encryption software! [sourceforge.net] And how precisely will the AU Government deal with that? If everyone there starts encrypting all their IM's Emails and VoIP calls, there is simply not enough processing power to make it valuable to tap anything in the first place. I predict significant backlash once Law Enforcement figures out that this isn't going to help them at all, but rather it is going to popularize encryption (which is in my view A G

Time was, countries like the USA and Australia prided themselves on standing up for individual freedom and protecting the rights of the individual against the State. Well, it seems there is a life cycle to cultures as much as anything else.

I'm old enough that I worry more for my grandchildren than for myself, but I am inclined to take some degree of pride and comfort in the thought that my parents' generation managed to spread some of those values widely. What I've seen from Brazil, for instance, gives

Time was, countries like the USA and Australia prided themselves on standing up for white male landholder freedom and protecting the rights of the white male landholder against the State

There, corrected that for ya!:)

It's easy to pick out some bad trends and conclude that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. It's equally easy to pick out some good ones and conclude that we're entering a golden age. Both conclusions are grotesque oversimplifications. Where the exact balance is, I've been unable to determine in the mere four decades or so of my life, but I have come to the conclusion that things are getting better and worse at ever-increasing rates. I'm not sure I believe in the

Actually, the current state of affairs regarding the porn filter is that it is not isp based.I've had to order 3 CDs (Safe Eyes) last week.They still haven't turned up. I ph them and they said that everything was on backorder because there was more and more demand.http://www.netalert.gov.au/ [netalert.gov.au]

They are nuts, so it's hard to say exactly what "their dreams" really are.But if the way they ran Afghanistan was any example, or their slightly less nuts/fanatical/medieval fellow Salafists the Saud family tells us anything, then they would of course love total control of national snooping infrastructure.

But of course I'm not saying that some Qaeda jerkoffs are in a cave somewhere plotting to do stuff like that. They barely hijacked some planes, after years of planning, fanatical (if sometimes inconsistent

Down the road to fascism or worse. The problem with deploying these "investigative" technologies isn't necessarily what use the current administration will put them to (although just wanting this kind of access to peoples private lives is troubling) - it's what the next administration or the one after that will do with it.

Human beings are what they are; a certain percentage would look upon this ability as a way to prevent anyone from mounting any kind of opposition to their continuing domination of the cou

The solution will be a gradual shift in package design. All new programs really, really need point to point encryption built in by default. As in, I want to program a new {whatever}: In program design I first decide how to secure the connection and encrypt the data. Second, I decide *what* I'm going to transfer, then the interface.

Post cards eventually led to folded paper with a wax seal to the letter inside a sealed envelope. Where is the same standard of privacy in Internet Clients I expect when I mai